Advantages and Disadvantages of Formulating Short-Term and Long-Term Marketing Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of ever-increasing instability in global markets and rapid digital transformation, the issue of reconciling the temporal horizons of marketing planning acquires critical significance. This study constitutes a comprehensive system-analytical review of the advantages and limitations of short-term and long-term marketing strategies. The aim of the work is to develop an integrative model that ensures the alignment of operational marketing tactics with the long-term objectives of the organization in order to enhance its adaptability and competitiveness. The methodological foundation of the research comprises methods of system analysis and synthesis, as well as a meticulous selection and synthesis of findings from leading scientific publications and up-to-date empirical data from industry reports. During the analysis, the principal friction points and areas of potential synergy between the short-term focus on rapid results and the long-term perspective of sustainable development were identified. On the basis of these findings, an original conceptual model of dynamic strategic harmonization is proposed, grounded in the principles of flexibility in resource allocation, cyclical (iterative) review of marketing steps, and a value-oriented approach to communication construction. The conclusion of the study is that abandoning the classical dichotomous perception of short-term versus long-term and transitioning to their dialectical synthesis constitutes a necessary condition for the formation of sustainable competitive advantages in the modern economic environment. The information presented in this study will be of interest to executives and marketing directors aiming to construct a balanced strategy that simultaneously achieves operational goals and strengthens the organization?s long-term market position. The theoretical contribution lies in substantiating an integrative paradigm of strategic marketing, thereby actualizing the discourse on the harmonization of temporal dimensions of management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".